Gerard, Everyone, could you please *NOT* reuse existing terms like "open world" and "closed world" with an already agreed specific meaning in a well-defined context for your own purposes!
On the topic of descriptive vs. prescriptive I believe that that is an additional dimension in this discussion. I still want to have an answer to the question of what to do with archetype nodes for which there are no existing terminology correspondence. Should we ban those archetype nodes or should we (over)inflate terminologies with imprecise content or should we just accept that archetypes and terminology are different artefact beasts with different properties and that we have to thread carefully balancing terminology binding possibilities and specific use case requirements? /Daniel On Thu, 2013-08-29 at 10:53 +0200, Gerard Freriks wrote: > yes, I agree. > > > And it is the same as communication in a 'closed world' or 'open > world' situation. > > > Gerard Freriks > +31 620347088 > gfrer at luna.nl > > On 29 aug. 2013, at 09:50, gjb <gjb at crs4.it> wrote: > > > Re: Ontology & archetype codes > > > > aren't we, here, in the realms of Descriptive v. Prescriptive > > Grammar? > > > > http://grammar.about.com/od/basicsentencegrammar/f/descpresgrammar.htm > > > > *Descriptive* obliges you to change whenever the language seems to. > > > > *Prescriptive* obliges you to try to hold the language static. > > > > The hard bit is gauging the utility of responding to any given > > change. > > > > > > Gavin Brelstaff > > CRS4 in > > Sardinia > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > openEHR-technical mailing list > > openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org > > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
